Nasa Announces De-orbit Mission For Hubble
SkulkBait
Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
<div class="IPBDescription">A sad day for astronomy</div> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
NASA budget calls for Hubble's end
Last Updated Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:39:38 EST
CBC News
CAPE CANAVERAL, FLA. - It's curtains for the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA's new budget says.
The famous but troubled camera is heading for a "robotic de-orbit mission," the space agency said Monday in its budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
That means the Hubble, which hovers about 600 kilometres above the Earth and circles it every 95 minutes, will be guided into the ocean once it has worn out. "The timing and content of the de-orbit mission will be a result of activities conducted in 2005," NASA said.
Hubble is "a spacecraft that is dying," NASA comptroller Steve Isakowitz said.
<b>But it wasn't the $1 billion US to $2 billion US cost of the repairs needed to keep the telescope sending information to back Earth that led to the decision. Rather, the risks of fixing it are too high, he said.</b>
Launched in 1990, Hubble is only a year away from its original lifespan of 15 years.
* FROM FEB. 2, 2005: Saving Hubble may be too expensive, U.S. legislators say
NASA is going to focus on putting astronauts back on the moon, a stepping-stone to Mars and beyond.
It plans a Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission that will start circling the moon in late 2008. That mission "will facilitate returning humans safely to the moon where testing and preparations for an eventual crewed mission to Mars will be undertaken."
U.S. President George W. Bush has set a target of between 2015 and 2020 for the next moon landing.
NASA's total fiscal 2006 budget will increase by 2.5 per cent to $16.45 billion US, including $191 million US for the Hubble.
Images from the camera enabled astronomers to estimate the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and discover a mysterious force called dark energy, which may oppose gravity and allow the universe to expand. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--<a href='http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/02/07/aids-human050207.html' target='_blank'>CBC Health and Science News</a>. (emphasis mine)
I call your attention to the bolded section. Too dangerous? As I understand it, maintinence missions to the HST were being done all the time, was it less dangerous then? No, it was just as dangerous, only now the public has pussied out because of one little accident. And for what? New missions to the moon and mars. So let me get this straight, going to mars, or even the moon, is somehow not as dangerous as fixing the Hubble? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for going to mars, but frankly a mission to mars could never give us the cost/science ration that Hubble gave us.
Wrose yet, since Columbia was the only orbiter equiped to bring the Hubble back safely (it was supposed to be on display at the smithsonian), we will simply be destroying it. Sad day...
NASA budget calls for Hubble's end
Last Updated Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:39:38 EST
CBC News
CAPE CANAVERAL, FLA. - It's curtains for the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA's new budget says.
The famous but troubled camera is heading for a "robotic de-orbit mission," the space agency said Monday in its budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
That means the Hubble, which hovers about 600 kilometres above the Earth and circles it every 95 minutes, will be guided into the ocean once it has worn out. "The timing and content of the de-orbit mission will be a result of activities conducted in 2005," NASA said.
Hubble is "a spacecraft that is dying," NASA comptroller Steve Isakowitz said.
<b>But it wasn't the $1 billion US to $2 billion US cost of the repairs needed to keep the telescope sending information to back Earth that led to the decision. Rather, the risks of fixing it are too high, he said.</b>
Launched in 1990, Hubble is only a year away from its original lifespan of 15 years.
* FROM FEB. 2, 2005: Saving Hubble may be too expensive, U.S. legislators say
NASA is going to focus on putting astronauts back on the moon, a stepping-stone to Mars and beyond.
It plans a Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission that will start circling the moon in late 2008. That mission "will facilitate returning humans safely to the moon where testing and preparations for an eventual crewed mission to Mars will be undertaken."
U.S. President George W. Bush has set a target of between 2015 and 2020 for the next moon landing.
NASA's total fiscal 2006 budget will increase by 2.5 per cent to $16.45 billion US, including $191 million US for the Hubble.
Images from the camera enabled astronomers to estimate the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and discover a mysterious force called dark energy, which may oppose gravity and allow the universe to expand. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--<a href='http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/02/07/aids-human050207.html' target='_blank'>CBC Health and Science News</a>. (emphasis mine)
I call your attention to the bolded section. Too dangerous? As I understand it, maintinence missions to the HST were being done all the time, was it less dangerous then? No, it was just as dangerous, only now the public has pussied out because of one little accident. And for what? New missions to the moon and mars. So let me get this straight, going to mars, or even the moon, is somehow not as dangerous as fixing the Hubble? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for going to mars, but frankly a mission to mars could never give us the cost/science ration that Hubble gave us.
Wrose yet, since Columbia was the only orbiter equiped to bring the Hubble back safely (it was supposed to be on display at the smithsonian), we will simply be destroying it. Sad day...
Comments
Sky, it's only a matter of time before it falls back in to earth's atmosphere anyway
It is not economical viable to maintain its operational status, because modern ground-based telescopes are able to deliver pictures of the equal and superior qualitiy.
because sky, have you ever been to a museum? ya know, the hubble has a lot of heritage for NASA and other people and maybe we'd just , I dunno, not want it to rot in space before falling into the earth and burning up.... just a thought
its not really that hard to understand
This goes beyond this instance, we need to stand up to wastes in the governement everywhere it is. I say lets leave space alone until everyone in our country can eat, and we've delt with our foriegn debts. Then, sure, why not go to the Moon or Mars or put more things up there. But seriosuly, if we can't even handel things fiscaly here on our own planet, why are we trying spread else where?
because sky, have you ever been to a museum? ya know, the hubble has a lot of heritage for NASA and other people and maybe we'd just , I dunno, not want it to rot in space before falling into the earth and burning up.... just a thought
its not really that hard to understand <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-skulkbait+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (skulkbait)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrose yet, since Columbia was the only orbiter equiped to bring the Hubble back safely (it was supposed to be on display at the smithsonian), we will simply be destroying it. Sad day... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You really have a problem reading entire threads, don't you? This plan will still end up with the satellite crashing into some ocean at incredible speeds. Unless someone wants to pick up all the pieces, reform them, and then reassemble them, that satellite isn't getting to a museum in one piece.
Oh, and, the satellite wouldn't "rot" in space. It technically should be able to stay up there for quite a long time if we shut all the systems down and only do some minor course correction every now and then. Hopefully that would last until we could properly return it to Earth.
if were gonna blow it up... we should at least use one of our missles to do the job, I mean its not like those things last forever. they got a self life. better to use them then waste them
Hubble has a set of gyroscopes. These keep it pointed in the right direction when observing objects.
These gyroscopes need regular mantinence, and when enough of them fail, the telescope has no way of keeping itself stable. It will tumble; and when this happens it will be too dangerous to approach. Whether they decide to repair or deorbit, they have to do it soon.
Hubble has a set of gyroscopes. These keep it pointed in the right direction when observing objects.
These gyroscopes need regular mantinence, and when enough of them fail, the telescope has no way of keeping itself stable. It will tumble; and when this happens it will be too dangerous to approach. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats why we should nuke it!
I believe skulk was referring to NASA's <i>original</i> plan to return Hubble to earth packed safely aboard the Columbia. Now that the Columbia's gone, NASA has to resort to their alternate plan of de-orbiting it in the ocean.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This goes beyond this instance, we need to stand up to wastes in the governement everywhere it is. I say lets leave space alone until everyone in our country can eat, and we've delt with our foriegn debts. Then, sure, why not go to the Moon or Mars or put more things up there. But seriosuly, if we can't even handel things fiscaly here on our own planet, why are we trying spread else where?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because science is mankind's key to technological advancement? Ever since we stepped out of our neolithic infancy, there's always been two sides between poverty and wealth. That doesn't mean that we aren't free to explore the universe around us. Think of everything you use today on a daily basis that we wouldn't have without a space program. Would you still think mankind would be better off?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there a problem with it falling back to Earth? It'd burn up during the descent anyway, so why spend money guiding it back to Earth on a "safe" course....where it'll just hit the ocean and disintegrate<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because if you leave it up there to de-orbit itself, you run the risk of hitting other satellites in orbit, and the danger it poses to what's on the ground. If NASA was confident that it would burn itself up completely, they wouldn't devote the time and resources for this mission; instead, they are not certain what will happen, and if they wait too long, then a de-orbit mission to Hubble will be impossible and now you have a falling chunk of irradiated metal and silicon falling *somewhere* on earth. There's no way to predict what happens at that point and the risks are too great. Would you blame NASA for spending time and money to ensure that people lived?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hubble was an overrated and overblown project from the very beginning.
It is not economical viable to maintain its operational status, because modern ground-based telescopes are able to deliver pictures of the equal and superior qualitiy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
X-ray and radio telescopes, yes, but not visual telescopes. And last I heard, Arecibo wasn't able to measure red shift. The fact is Hubble cast a new light on the universe as we know it and unlocked a treasure chest full of insight into how the world around us really works. Unfortunately, the mission of Hubble is at an end, and it's a shame that NASA has to cut its mission short now rather than continue operation a few more years. Just because the SR-71 Blackbird was retired, you can't say it never had any use during the Cold War years. Information is ammunition.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->From what I understand of the matter is that it costs nearly the same amount to put a new, more capable, observatory in to space than to have another repair mission. I think it's time to move on with better things.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except it'll be at least seven years before the next-generation space telescope is completed and ready for launch. Meanwhile, we're robbed of a very valuable piece if equipment that many projects have come to rely on this past decade and a half. There may be a window of opportunity later on, but you also have to ask at what cost.
Hubble hasn't outlived its usefulness in the least; it's a shame the powers that be see it that way. NASA's made tough decisions before, and with their limited funding I don't blame them, but I do agree that it's better to pull the plug on Hubble and conserve funding than cut corners and endanger another manned mission. If that's how priorities have to lie, then so be it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not that I'm exactly an expert one the space program, but I can't think of a single thing.
Though i do suspect that there hasn't been anything developed that is as important to mankind as the ability to eat.
I believe skulk was referring to NASA's <i>original</i> plan to return Hubble to earth packed safely aboard the Columbia. Now that the Columbia's gone, NASA has to resort to their alternate plan of de-orbiting it in the ocean. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Somehow I doubt that that satellite is packing enough engine power to control its own descent through the atmosphere without getting burnt to a crisp; that's why Columbia needed to be fitted to retrieve it in the first place. As I see it, this is just NASA telling the satellite the path to fall, just in case some pieces of the thing make it through reentry whole. They'd rather the pieces hit the water rather than hit some farmer in Eastern Europe or something. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[edit]Yeah Avenger, I'd assume that NASA would be responsible for that. And hopefully far in the future, we'll use space stations as our communications relays rather than individual satellites. Just a couple hundred stations around the globe should do the work of a couple thousand satellites.
But I guess it's just as well that they get it down safely and in pieces rather than risk it becoming part of the ever-growing cloud of crap just floating in orbit around the planet.
Though i do suspect that there isn't hasn't been anything developed that is as important to mankind as the ability to eat. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mankind's ability to eat wasn't developed, it was something we already came equipped with. However, you can compare old crop methods with genetically modified harvest foods that now feed four times the population while using a quarter of the land area. Would we be where we are now as a civilization without such an advance.
Teflon? Velcro? Cell phones? You can't think solely about what was a direct product of the space program, but everything that was also affected by it. I don't think there's a product you can name that didn't reap the benefits of the American, Russian, or European space programs at some point. Hell, even the medicines you see that treat cancer patients and others suffering from terminal illness made their pioneering breakthroughs in research and development aboard the space shuttle.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->that raises another good question.... on earth we have laws and regulations about who owns what and who can build what wear... but in space? do we have any order with any of that.... there might not be tonx of satilites now... but 50 yeras down the roads there could be 1000's or millions... and how are we gonna keep them from crashing into each other... and if the hubble did crash onto earth and kill tons of people... would nasa have to take responsability for that? its just interesting to think about<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Space is defined as neutral in international law. No country may claim airspace above an altitude of 130,000 feet as their own, iirc. However, each country is responsible for what they launch. If NASA doesn't keep track of every satellite, observatory, rocket staging booster, or even the retrorocket modules from the Mercury flights (if they're still up there...), and something were to happen, who's fault do you think it would be?
At any rate, it's still a couple hundred million stolen from whatever country's treasury you stole it from. Space itself is neutral; what we choose to put in it is not. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
ok so say that the country who's economy I just destroyed is comming after me and decides to blow my little butt out of the sky..... how do Nuke's work in space? have we ever done any nucklear missle testing in outer space? sorry if theese are stupid questions I've just never thought about it
Nukes deliver a bright explosion, electromagnetic radiation, and a nifty puffball effect, with little actual destructive force because there's no means to impart the kinetic force of the blast to a target - which is why I think the notion of using nukes to take out targets in space is laughable. You can hit satellites with EMP to disable them, but you're also going to disable everything else in range.
Yes, we've detonated nukes in space; a <i>lot</i> of them. It's illegal to do them now, however, since all forms of nuclear testing above ground and in space have been banned by international treaties.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->NOOOOOOOOO DAMMIT NOOOOOOOO. I demand this object to stay in space and continue to amaze me with awsome pictures.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'll just have to do with the still-awesome-but-not-quite-as-awesome pictures from ground-based observatories for the next seven years.
Unless someone can convince <a href='http://www.gigapxl.org' target='_blank'>these guys</a> to send their 4-gigapixel camera for a trip aboard the ISS... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Mankind's ability to eat wasn't developed, it was something we already came equipped with. However, you can compare old crop methods with genetically modified harvest foods that now feed four times the population while using a quarter of the land area. Would we be where we are now as a civilization without such an advance.
Teflon? Velcro? Cell phones? You can't think solely about what was a direct product of the space program, but everything that was also affected by it. I don't think there's a product you can name that didn't reap the benefits of the American, Russian, or European space programs at some point. Hell, even the medicines you see that treat cancer patients and others suffering from terminal illness made their pioneering breakthroughs in research and development aboard the space shuttle.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, thats all fine and good. I still say that feeding our population is far more important than cell phones, even cancer treatments. There are only four or five countries aroudn the world that <i>could not</i> produce enough food to feed all its people. This isn't using those genticaly modified crops you mentioned (which by the way has suprisly little effect on our civilization, a good chuck of the "developed" world has a lot of restrictions or has outright banned the use or import of them...) The excess from the rest of the world should be able to feed them. Yet there are 852 million people are hungery and 1.2 billlion are in povetry (which is more than total number of people living in the "developed world" who are the main benificiaries of the benifits from the space program). We can go galavanting around the solar system, developing great new products to make our lives better. Thats nice. But to me, the daily suffering of childern here on earth is far more important than if my eggs are going to stick to the pan in the morning (incidently I don't ahve a cell phone, nor anything with velcro and use cast iron...not that I'm questioning if the space program has touched other products I use, but I just thought I'd mention it...oh and I didn't mean that we developed the ability to eat, but that having acess to food is more importnat than developing new products...sorry porr wording or re-reading.)
Now I relise that slaashing the space program isn't going to fix world poverty or hunger, it wouldn't even solve the problems we have in the US. But it is time that we stepped up to the plate as a world superpower and started fixing our masive waste, and actualy conecntrated on helping people around the world. I don't want the space program cut, but I would like to see some more thought given the fact that just because we can do somethign doesn't mean that its the best thing we could be doing with those resources.
ok so say that the country who's economy I just destroyed is comming after me and decides to blow my little butt out of the sky..... how do Nuke's work in space? have we ever done any nucklear missle testing in outer space? sorry if theese are stupid questions I've just never thought about it <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You just get done watching Armageddon or something? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Jaeger: if you explode a nuke in empty space it wouldn't have a way to transfer kinetic energy to something nearby, but if you <i>hit</i> an object with the nuke, which then stuck to it and exploded, it'd do plenty of damage.
It doesn't pack any engine power <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I don't even think hubble has attitude thrusters (I think they use the gyroscopes for everything)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I still say that feeding our population is far more important than cell phones, even cancer treatments. There are only four or five countries aroudn the world that could not produce enough food to feed all its people. This isn't using those genticaly modified crops you mentioned (which by the way has suprisly little effect on our civilization, a good chuck of the "developed" world has a lot of restrictions or has outright banned the use or import of them...) The excess from the rest of the world should be able to feed them. Yet there are 852 million people are hungery and 1.2 billlion are in povetry (which is more than total number of people living in the "developed world" who are the main benificiaries of the benifits from the space program).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Euoplocephalus, I agree that to some extent we do need to pay attention to the worlds problems, although I don't quite agree to the extreme of what you're suggesting. Sure, we could put all technological research and development on hold and feed all the hungry people in the world. But if we did that, we'd still be pre-industrialized!
I'm not trying to be heartless, but quite frankly if we wait till we solve the worlds problems before we go off and explore, we'll never get off the ground.
Put it in perspective: the money spent "galavanting around the solar system" is a fraction of the money spent. While some suggest just cutting NASA, and still others (as yourself) suggest cutting everything not directly related to solving the poverty issue before moving on, I think we make great strides to that end without having to do either.
NASA's annual budget is something like 16 billion. That's a drop in the bucket compared to a great deal of other programs, including welfare. We spend 200+ billion or more on welfare every year. Yet welfare has problems and there are still starving people here (much less others around the world). The beaurocratical nature of the government means that we probably waste more than NASA's budget every year on programs that would require extensive reforming to become more efficient. Suggesting we cut "wasteful programs" to feed the poor isn't unreasonable, however I don't think NASAs research is wasteful, and rather than "cutting" programs willy nilly, I imagine reforming programs would not only make them more efficient at what they do, but also waste less, freeing up money that can be used for other things. All programs, from welfare, the VA, IRS, even NASA can do with some streamlining. Throwing money at a problem is like a pastime for us, but it's not going to solve the problem.
The typical reaction of "Lets get rid of NASA, we've got people to feed!" is bogus. Not only will 16 extra billion not solve the problem of taking care of the poor, it's skirting the issue; the inefficiency inherent to many complex government programs (including NASA). I think one of the reasons people automatically think along those lines is that they don't see any direct benefit from learning about the universe around us. They generally don't see past the end of their nose either. All technology is based, and dependant on, on our knowledge of the world around us. The properties of materials we've defined through mathematics, physics, chemistry and so on all had to be discovered, researched, and to some degree understood before we could use and manipulate these materials. This has been a constant throughout history; from discovering the sparking properties of flint and the shaping properties of bronze to the most advanced composites today. So what if space exploration only yields a few direct benefits. Everything we can do now, and can potentially do in the future, is based on what we can learn about the properties of the universe around us. Learning more about it will always be useful, if not now then as a foundation for greater discoveries later.
I'm not trying to be heartless, but quite frankly if we wait till we solve the worlds problems before we go off and explore, we'll never get off the ground.
Put it in perspective: the money spent "galavanting around the solar system" is a fraction of the money spent. While some suggest just cutting NASA, and still others (as yourself) suggest cutting everything not directly related to solving the poverty issue before moving on, I think we make great strides to that end without having to do either.
NASA's annual budget is something like 16 billion. That's a drop in the bucket compared to a great deal of other programs, including welfare. We spend 200+ billion or more on welfare every year. Yet welfare has problems and there are still starving people here (much less others around the world). The beaurocratical nature of the government means that we probably waste more than NASA's budget every year on programs that would require extensive reforming to become more efficient. Suggesting we cut "wasteful programs" to feed the poor isn't unreasonable, however I don't think NASAs research is wasteful, and rather than "cutting" programs willy nilly, I imagine reforming programs would not only make them more efficient at what they do, but also waste less, freeing up money that can be used for other things. All programs, from welfare, the VA, IRS, even NASA can do with some streamlining. Throwing money at a problem is like a pastime for us, but it's not going to solve the problem.
The typical reaction of "Lets get rid of NASA, we've got people to feed!" is bogus. Not only will 16 extra billion not solve the problem of taking care of the poor, it's skirting the issue; the inefficiency inherent to many complex government programs (including NASA). I think one of the reasons people automatically think along those lines is that they don't see any direct benefit from learning about the universe around us. They generally don't see past the end of their nose either. All technology is based, and dependant on, on our knowledge of the world around us. The properties of materials we've defined through mathematics, physics, chemistry and so on all had to be discovered, researched, and to some degree understood before we could use and manipulate these materials. This has been a constant throughout history; from discovering the sparking properties of flint and the shaping properties of bronze to the most advanced composites today. So what if space exploration only yields a few direct benefits. Everything we can do now, and can potentially do in the future, is based on what we can learn about the properties of the universe around us. Learning more about it will always be useful, if not now then as a foundation for greater discoveries later. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that how I came off? I didn't mean to be quite so harsh ont eh space program. I don't think it should be cut completely. I just think that sobbing over the fact that they are cutting the Hubble program, complaining about how we won't be investing the god knows how much to bring it down to the smithsonian etc. is extermly troubling, considering the other ways the money might be spent.
I do however feel that its a prime example of how we use our money in ways that might not be the best. Another example, how many billions have we sunk in the SDI program, or defense in general. My intent was not to say, cut everything that is not welfare related, just to say "Hey, lets make sure we help the people too."
You just get done watching Armageddon or something? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[/QUOTE]
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
......and I don't want to miss a thing!.....
actually I haven't seen that movie for a while and have no desire to.... so in space what kind of weapons are effective? conventional explosions just don't seem to cut it with such a lack of oxygen and what have you.... lasers maybe?
They are linking telescopes, thus combining the amount of light they can gather, while still being much cheaper than hubble. Also, the newst visual telescopes have means to compensate for the blurring of the light during its travel through the atmosphere, which was the justification for a space telescope in the first place.
As for the redshift: I don't know, have not heard anything according to that. I am sure however, that they were able to make redshift measurements before Hubble though.